Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

Beyond annotations (readOnlyHint=false, destructiveHint=false), the description discloses that it emails a real person, respects unsubscribes and suppression lists, and explains return statuses including 'already_requested' with no second email or credit spent. This is rich behavioral context for a side-effectful tool.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

Two sentences, front-loaded with the core action and immediately followed by the critical caveat and return statuses. Every word earns its place, no redundancy.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

Given no output schema, the description sufficiently explains the possible return values and side effects. It covers when to use, what happens (respects suppression), and important outcomes (already_requested prevents duplicate sends). The location_id prerequisite is covered in the schema.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

Schema description coverage is 100% (all three parameters have descriptions), so the description adds no additional parameter meaning. Baseline 3 applies; the description's mention of statuses does not directly clarify parameter usage beyond the schema.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

The description clearly states the tool sends a single review-request email to a real customer via ReputeMap's campaign engine. The verb 'Send' plus the specific resource 'review-request email' makes it distinct from the sibling read-only tools (get_review_stats, list_reviews, etc.).

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

It explicitly states 'only use it when the user explicitly asks to request a review,' providing a clear condition for use. It does not name an alternative tool, but the guidance is strong enough to prevent misuse.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.